Critics of the tax
credit, rolled out under President Bush's leadership, will likely be
even more infuriated with pending proposals to bump the tax credit to as
high as $10,000 USD.

For all its fortune in the U.S., GM
is finding resistance to its push for government assistance in
China. China, looking to support local EV efforts, has thus far
rebuffed GM's urging to adopt a level tax credit for Chinese EV
buyers. GM, which reportedly sold
more cars in China last year than the U.S., is currently deciding
whether to scrap plans to build a series of EV charging stations in
China's urban areas.

GM China VP David Chen complains,"China
is the only country that has different subsidy policies [for electric
vehicles based on origin]. The U.S. government provides
US$7,500 for every electric car no matter where it comes from."

As
a result, the Chevy Volt is anticipated to be priced at over $40,000
USD after any applicable tax credits when it launches later this
year. This will be drastically more expensive the domestic
hybrids produced by Chinese rivals.

At the moment, any EV sold in the U.S.
(regardless of the country of origin) can get full tax credits.
In China, though, U.S. EVs receive unequal treatment.

Even
Japan, which long blocked auto imports from the U.S., recently
caved in and offered a whopping 3.24 million yen (roughly
$38,000 USD) tax rebate for those who buy Tesla
Roadster EVs. The Roadster, a luxury competitor to the
Volt, currently retails for 12.8 million yen (roughly $149,200 USD)
in Japan.

IHS Automotive analyst to Green
Car Advisor writes, "Although
the government is looking to increase the numbers of such vehicles
sold in the country, it is aiming to maintain the stranglehold of
locally built vehicles, and this is unlikely to change."

China's
EV dominance isn't merely limited to domestic assembly, though.
The growing giant also maintains a tight grip on around 95
percent of the world's rare earth metal production. EVs and
hybrid vehicles use much more rare earth metals then standard
vehicles. And it takes years to create active mines and
processing facilities for rare earth metals. Thus, to some
extent, China will be able to dictate the price of EVs and hybrids
internationally.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

quote: I think if you want to buy a Volt though, more power to you. I also think a Volt though makes a lot more sense than a pure electric. And it doesn't look like crap like a Prius.

Ah but the Volt makes much LESS sense than a true plug in hybrid vehicle like the 700 mile one Ford's cooking up for a 2012 launch (two years away).

The Volt funnels all the charge from the back up motor through the battery, initially. Thus in hot conditions (e.g. Arizona, southern California) or cold conditions (e.g. Michigan, Minnesota) you may not be able to run your vehicle or may see dramatically decreased performance.

Putzing around at minimum torque while you try to get your car to heat up may be okay, but it becomes dangerous if Volt drivers expect to do "normal car" things like merge onto the highway, during all weather conditions. The Volt just can't hack harsh weather, and thus I would argue it is of minimum utility for those who don't live in temperate states year round.

PHEVs and Hybrids on the other hand have a full power-split gas engine, so have no performance issues so to speak in harsh weather, except for the fuel economy coming back down to the base model's (or perhaps a bit less from the extra weight).

Plus they offer an increasingly nice return on interest over the vehicle's life cycle to boot.

quote: I am against the government owning GM and any automotive tax credit.

That's reasonable, but are you also against the millions in tax breaks that were handed out to various financial institutions under the Bush administrations?

I can appreciate the criticism that Obama is handing out money to GM, etc. but it's important not to overlook that Bush did the same, albeit to different people.

In recent years whoever has been in the White House, be they a Democrat or Republican there's one thing you can count on -- a good chunk of your hard-earned money is going towards buying that new mansion or luxury sportscar of business people whose lobby is in tight with the current administration.

I think there's people on both sides of the aisle that oppose this.

But when you look at some of the nation's top rising political stars -- like the Republican governor of Mississippi who was a lobbyist for several years and is considering at 2012 run for president -- there's precious little push to stamp out special interests and cronyism. After all, as soon as they get out of office they're getting kickbacks and financial rewards from those whose back they scratched (just look at how well Bill Clinton has done for himself!).

quote: That's reasonable, but are you also against the millions in tax breaks that were handed out to various financial institutions under the Bush administrations?

If you're referring to the bank bailouts, extremely.

I don't mind the government providing incentives to do business in the way of taxing businesses less. Only a liberal views not taxing someone as somehow costing the government and the people money. It also should be standard across the board. At least at the federal level. If a state wants to essentially bid for a company to move their factory to the state, that's their business. And if the people don't like it, they can more easily get rid of those people.

What I do mind is giving people money they didn't necessarily pay in order to encourage people to buy a companies products. That is the government running the economy.

And Jindal is no conservative. Would he be better than Obama or a guy like McCain. Yes. But I have no desire to see him running against Obama in 2012. There is nothing wrong with lobbying either. It has been in existence since the founding days of the country. Lobbying in order to push through things that will benefit businesses is fine. Lobbying to completely kill an industry because a certain group doesn't like it, that is not.

Obama ran on a platform of getting rid of lobbyists. Then he put a bunch of lobbyists on his cabinet. But they're so smart so we need them right?

quote:I don't mind the government providing incentives to do business in the way of taxing businesses less. Only a liberal views not taxing someone as somehow costing the government and the people money. It also should be standard across the board. At least at the federal level. If a state wants to essentially bid for a company to move their factory to the state, that's their business. And if the people don't like it, they can more easily get rid of those people.

Ah classic "Reganomics" -- at least somewhat more sound than "neoconservatism" -- i.e. the millions in pork barrel grants that Palin poured into special interest like research into crabbing and financing the bridge to nowhere (for the record some liberal politicians are very much as guilty of this).

While I respect some things Regan did, trickle down economics was not one of his finer creations.

On a base level business tax credits -- particularly to investment firms and their ilk -- don't trickle down to the average citizen ... not much at least. And the money for them has to come from somewhere. Thats why many taxes that impact those in the middle class were actually quite HIGH during the Bush administration.

If you're going to adopt a tax cut, great, after all there's certainly fat to be trimmed from the U.S. bureaucratic machine.

But offer it as a flat-rate tax cut in USD. THAT would stimulate the economy. Why trickle down, when you can directly feed the target???

Granted Bush did pass a token amount of tax stimulus money for direct distribution to U.S. citizens. But if you look at the overall tax trend on all the taxes you pay to the federal gov't, they've been steadily rising through the Obama AND Bush years.

That means a scant few really benefited from Bush's tax cuts for investment firms, et al.

quote:There is nothing wrong with lobbying either. It has been in existence since the founding days of the country. Lobbying in order to push through things that will benefit businesses is fine. Lobbying to completely kill an industry because a certain group doesn't like it, that is not.

Ah but is it the government's job to pick favorites among individuals and businesses and promote their financial success and prosperity over others? That's the premise of lobbying.

Lobbying is a scheme that inherently promotes corruption and cronyism. I'm shocked that you support it.

I always took you as a fiscal conservative and lobbying is one of the most insidious forms of government market meddling.

Save us from your complaints about the Volt tax credit and praise of lobbying, which you deliver in the same breath. The tax credit was SPAWNED by lobbying from GM. Did you miss when their executives flew to Washington D.C., groveling for funding? Consistency, please.

quote: Obama ran on a platform of getting rid of lobbyists. Then he put a bunch of lobbyists on his cabinet. But they're so smart so we need them right?

Well at least we can agree here, that the lobbyist influence on the Obama administration is unsavory.

Right now, as we speak, the debate in Washington rages over the Bush tax cuts BECAUSE letting them expire would hurt the middle class. Bush created an entire NEW tax bracket just for middle class relief. The fact that you, someone who should be up on current events, seems oblivious to this is honestly shocking.

But here you are, talking the same repeated lies about how the tax cuts only helped "the rich".

I don't come to Daily Tech to see a so-called journalist engaging in the same tired failed ideological class warfare talking points. A dishonest one at that.

quote: While I respect some things Regan did, trickle down economics was not one of his finer creations.

Right which is why you and other Liberals still can't explain how, even though he cut taxes, the treasury collected more tax money than under higher tax administrations like Carters.

Lower taxes promote growth and increase revenues. Reagan didn't "create" trickle down, he just gave it a name. All good economies in our country's history have been the result of this "trickle down" If you had to choose between "trickle down" and Keynesian economics, what would you choose? I shudder to think...

And Jason, please, the hypocrisy of bringing up "pork barrel" projects while in the same breath defending the Obama administration. That honestly just strains the bounds of believability. You CANNOT be that dense. You even brought up Palin lol, you couldn't be more classic Liberal if you tried!

Cocaine trade helped fuel the 1980's economy. Not being sarcastic, but both directly and indirectly that's where the money came from. Part of the reason why there is a recent and artificial push to legalize weed, so it could be taxed.

I am also a firm believer that the government wants its citizens to be fat. Fat people are lazy and unmotivated. They also consume more food, medical services and medicines to treat their condition, and die faster so less of a drain on social services. That's the reason ephedra was banned because it actually worked.

If the government wanted to legalize useful drugs, they would start with Clenbutorol and Winstrol.

quote: Jason I really have just lost all respect for you after reading this.

Well I'm really not trying to earn your "respect". I do find it amusing and/or fortunate when we happen to occasionally agree.

quote: Right now, as we speak, the debate in Washington rages over the Bush tax cuts BECAUSE letting them expire would hurt the middle class. Bush created an entire NEW tax bracket just for middle class relief. The fact that you, someone who should be up on current events, seems oblivious to this is honestly shocking.

FALSE. Bush threw a pitiance towards the middle class. For example my rebate check was roughly $1,000 if I recall correctly and I payed around $30,000 in taxes that year. And that was a one shot deal. I believe I might have received one other check for around $500.

That's small change, wrt the amount of taxes I'm paying.

Who Bush DID give big tax cuts/loopholes too were large corporations, oil companies, and the investment firms. The amount of tax burden lifted from them grossly outweighed these small tax rebates. And further, Bush actually increased a lot of taxes outside the income tax directly affecting the middle class.

Take this 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office: The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.

Over that same period, taxpayers with incomes from around $51,500 to around $75,600 saw their share of federal tax payments increase. Households earning around $75,600 saw their tax burden jump the most, from 18.7 percent of all taxes to 19.5 percent.

quote: Right now, as we speak, the debate in Washington rages over the Bush tax cuts BECAUSE letting them expire would hurt the middle class. Bush created an entire NEW tax bracket just for middle class relief. The fact that you, someone who should be up on current events, seems oblivious to this is honestly shocking.

No, the fact of the matter is that I do not really agree with either side. The Republicans support the flawed Bush cuts that largely serve as a machine to funnel money to the wealthy, while the Democrats, for the most part, want to scrap the cuts altogether, leaving everyone with higher taxes.

Either way the government is not serving the best interests of the majority of its systems.

quote: But here you are, talking the same repeated lies about how the tax cuts only helped "the rich".

Look at the numbers, buddy.

quote: I don't come to Daily Tech to see a so-called journalist engaging in the same tired failed ideological class warfare talking points. A dishonest one at that.

Look, I'm entitled to my opinion. I reserved it here for the comments. And there's nothing dishonest about my opinion.

quote:Lower taxes promote growth and increase revenues. Reagan didn't "create" trickle down, he just gave it a name. All good economies in our country's history have been the result of this "trickle down" If you had to choose between "trickle down" and Keynesian economics, what would you choose? I shudder to think...

You completely mistunderstood what I said because apparently you lack reading comprehension. I was ADVOCATING tax cuts. What I believe is that cuts to large business, which predominated the Regan and Bush Jr./Sr. years do not benefit the majority of Americans.

I believe in tax cuts directly for citizens and in a flat dollar amount. That way all citizens will see their tax burden reduced by a set amount.

I think both Reganomics and Keynesian economics have their flaws. We need to look at the system anew and there's definitely the need to trim some fat and cut taxes.

quote: And Jason, please, the hypocrisy of bringing up "pork barrel" projects while in the same breath defending the Obama administration. That honestly just strains the bounds of believability. You CANNOT be that dense. You even brought up Palin lol, you couldn't be more classic Liberal if you tried!

I was defending Obama? News to me! I thought I was just criticizing his tax credit program? Or did you yet again fail at reading comprehension?

Again, this is a tiresome debate as obviously you aren't going to read what I'm saying and understand it.

Look -- if Obama is trying to raise taxes on the middle class I oppose that. If Obama (or any future present) wants to close tax loopholes and credits for select large corporations like the oil industry I do NOT oppose that.

I support a flat tax cut direct to the American population. I do not support tax cuts for large businesses.

When it comes to economic policy, I don't support Bush or Obama or anyone who supports either cutting tax cuts to U.S. citizens or raising tax cuts for large corporations.

As for Palin, I only use her as an example, as I think she a shining example of the hypocrisy of the supposed "conservative" movement. Many "conservative" politicians are just as bad as liberal ones when it comes to pork.

If you pay $30,000 in taxes, you are not "middle class". That implies you make roughly 3 times as much as I do which would be nearly $200,000 a year.

And the Bush tax cuts were an ACROSS THE BOARD tax cut. Everyone got a tax cut. Poor people got the biggest. He eliminated the 10% income tax bracket. Making millions more people who paid NO taxes. Tax cuts mean the rich have a larger dollar amount in the cut because they make more.

And how did the Bush tax cuts affect LOCAL property taxes? There is no federal property tax on your home or car. As far as students, I saw no difference. I was a student in 2003. And users of parks? So they had to pay something or a little more. Boo f*cking hoo. National parks to me are not a priority. I would cut funding to every national park to balance the budget. Parks are a luxury, not a necessity.

And a flat tax cut (aka these "rebate checks" that everyone got) are nothing but welfare for a large number of people. Because they didn't factor in whether or not you actually paid taxes. Millions got the rebates who pay no taxes or who were already sucking off the system. And millions more who pay a lot of taxes, like my parents, who make a decent living but, from an earlier comment of yours make less than you, got a smaller or no rebate.

And there were those in the Democrat party who wanted to give them to illegals.

The fact is the Bush tax cuts expiring is going to kill small businesses and investment. The capitol gains tax is going up 20%. What do you think that is going to do to the stock market? And ultimately jobs. There is zero growth in the private sector even today. The only jobs being created are those which get some kind of federal funding. And now they want to spend billions more on roads and other transportation. Will it create jobs? In the short term yes. And then what? More spending projects?

There is no hope or chance for economic recovery along the path you want. Businesses go where they pay the least taxes generally. That is not the United States anymore. We have the highest corporate tax rate in the world and in January they're going up.

Ok I just can no longer take part in this sickening class warfare discussion that you Liberals insist on using. The "rich" in this country pay a ridiculous disproportionate amount of taxes. And you make it seem criminal when they are given the slightest bit of tax relief. The top 1% income earners pay something like 80% of the taxes. Taxes that WE would be paying if not for them. You bemoan corporate wealth while at the same time ignoring that the U.S has the second highest corporate tax rate in the entire world.

quote: FALSE. Bush threw a pitiance towards the middle class. For example my rebate check was roughly $1,000 if I recall correctly and I payed around $30,000 in taxes that year. And that was a one shot deal. I believe I might have received one other check for around $500.

Terrible example Jason. If you paid 30k in Federal Income taxes that year, you sure as HELL aren't middle class. You're doing a lot better than this middle class you seem to claim to represent.

quote: I was ADVOCATING tax cuts. What I believe is that cuts to large business, which predominated the Regan and Bush Jr./Sr. years do not benefit the majority of Americans.

Taxes WERE CUT!!! For everyone. Again, this class warfare argument you use to say this side didn't get cut enough or that side got cut too much is besides the point. You're being so petty, it's really sad.

quote: I was defending Obama? News to me!

This is what I mean by dishonest. Fit makes a comment about bailouts of GM and the Volt rebate, and you launch into a diatribe about Reagan, Bush, you even brought up Palin!!! If you don't think you're defending Obama, you're not just lying to me, but yourself as well.

Moral relativism is a pretty weak defense, but you're certainly not above using it apparently. But make no mistake, it IS a defense.

You can pretend to be impartial all you want, and feign neutrality. But when you have to dig up a dead president from the 1980's, regurgitate the same old class warfare liberal talking points, and throw in a Palin bash.. well, let's be honest here. You aren't impartial by ANY means.

So how is giving a group of people (Politicans no less) direct control of an economic system beneficial for the rest of us?

At least with the Free Market (Capitalism) choices are not centralized and highly based on individuals choosing whats best for them.

Corporations are directly supported by the government and can't exist without Government involvement. So as much as you dislike corporations they are a product of the government.

I dislike socialism because its a system that causes much more disparity reduces the standard of living, and people can never acquire the fruits of their own labor they have to share it with the rest of society.

Your claim of Misanthrope only applies to people who wish to steal my wealth for themselves. I worked for it! What have they done to get wealth for the most part nothing.

quote: At least with the Free Market (Capitalism) choices are not centralized and highly based on individuals choosing whats best for them.

Gee that would be wonderful if we didn't live in a plutarchy.

At least with the Free-For-All Market (Americanism) choices are centralized and highly based on corporations choosing whats best for them. Just ask the K St whores.

quote: Corporations are directly supported by the government and can't exist without Government involvement.

They're people, they should exist without the welfare they get, just like people should. Don't believe me? Ask your supreme court puppets.

quote: I dislike socialism because its a system that causes much more disparity reduces the standard of living, and people can never acquire the fruits of their own labor they have to share it with the rest of society.

And yet when the pendulum swings to the opposite extreme you don't have a problem with reverse Robin Hood-ism.

quote: Your claim of Misanthrope only applies to people who wish to steal my wealth for themselves. I worked for it!

So did the people who's lives were ruined by the Wall St parasites, by the CEO's of Enron, and Tyco. They all worked for it.

quote: That's reasonable, but are you also against the millions in tax breaks that were handed out to various financial institutions under the Bush administrations?

There's no such thing as a "bad" tax break Jason. The sooner you and others like you learn this, the better off the country will be. Or are you actually regurgitating the mindless "he only cut taxes for the rich" mantra that Obama and his cronies are trying to feed to the American public?

quote: I can appreciate the criticism that Obama is handing out money to GM, etc. but it's important not to overlook that Bush did the same, albeit to different people.

The TARP? No, that was NOT the same as the way Obama handled GM. It was a government takeover, plain and simple, and the shareholders were boned. Illegally, as a matter of fact. The TARP were loans, that have already been paid back mostly, and the government retained no majority position in those firms. He didn't hand the banks to Union morons. Sorry but Bush did not "do the same", and frankly we're 2 years into this mess and tired of hearing about Bush.

quote: Is the system broken? Yes. Can it be fixed? Let's hope...

Right. It's really going to be fixed by playing "blame the other guy and keep doing the same". Is that it, Jason?